A Look at Bad Game Design at Gamasutra

Remove all ads!

Gamasutra has set its eyes upon the lavish fount of disappointment and anguish known as bad game design. No roleplaying games are mentioned, although the problems being considered concern RPGs at least as much and probably more. Here's a snip:

Then it just sat there, waiting. "What am I supposed to do?" she asked the guy who was showing her the game. "Anything you want!" he said proudly (this was 1979, and games with parsers were brand new). But she didn't know what she wanted to do. The game didn't give her any incentive to do anything in particular, and we've lived with the same Twinkie Denial Condition for nearly 30 years -- it still happens, believe it or not.

Read the rest at Gamasutra.

 

A bit of a long-winded article. I disagree with many points it makes.

1. There's nothing wrong with mini-games per se, even if they're not optional. There certainly is something wrong with poorly designed mini-games, but they don't have to be. No One Lives Forever 2 had several unusual situations (the tri/monocycle chase, the sword duel and the tornado); one of the most exciting things about this game is that you're never sure what the game is going to throw at you. Not wanting to learn a new set of skills while a game progresses feels like laziness. A game that never progresses or changes gets very dull very quickly.

2. One of the most irritating things I find in modern games is that they constantly hammer you with reminders of what objective you need to complete. Yes, having easy access to a clearly stated objective is nice, but not when it shows up on your radar, on every loading screen, is automatically spoken by every character around you... it again feels lazy. I was never a great fan of note-taking (and with some of the old CRPGs you could have enough to write a small book by the end), but I'd much rather take manual notes than be spoon-fed. A journal-type system (which most modern and many old CRPGs use anyway) is a good balance.

3. The amnesia thing: same as with mini-games. It's been done awfully badly (a cookie for anyone who remembers Harvester. Those who never played it can consider themselves lucky), and it's been done brilliantly (PST of course). And as for that quote from The Sandbaggers, I find it a pretty heavy-handed way to pass on necessary information, and I'd hardly call it a good example to follow (though it still beats most voiceover narrations)

However, the problem with victory conditions is spot on. I cannot count the number of times I've been frustrated when a game would not acknowledge I'd completed an objective simply because I got too creative and did it in a way the designers didn't expect. This problem's always existed in computer games, but it seems to be getting worse with advanced technology, and consequently with the engine offering the illusion of multiple solutions.

 

*cough* Stalker *cough*

 

Yup, minigames are great. Just if they aren't compulsory. For example, I hate compulsory arcade parts in roleplaying games. You play a roleplaying game not for your victory to depend on the agility of your fingers. Fortunately, they're doable in most games - I just couldn't make the last optional flight in Jade Empire, the one to save Lord Lao. But I remember the ranger promotion quest in Might & Magic IX. It was horrible. Imagine precise jumping Indiana Jones style on the right tiles in first person view... do one thing wrong and you fail. And they won't always tell you you've already failed so you could start over. Nope. I went right through the traps (because I was so uber I didn't care), planted a Lloyd's Beacon right before the exit, started over, teleported and reported to the quest giver like the walkthrough said. What great thing Might & Magic had, though, was Arcomage. That card game just rocked.